The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1887-09-02
JOB PRINTING
STAMFORD SUSTAINED.


Justfes Field Decides That the Pacific
Railway Commission Is Not judicial
Body, and Therefore Can Not CoropeI
She Production of Testimony.
SAN FhsNoIsCo, Aug. 30-Justice Field, Of
the United States Supreme Court, delivered
his opinion yesterday morning in the matter
of the petition OF the Paeifc Railway COnI-
fnissioners to compel Senator Leland Stan
ford 10 answer certain questions respecting
the Central Pacific railway management,
and particularly 10 explain certain vouchers
of the railway company, and whether any
ni6Esey represented in certain unexplained
vouchers Mas used to influence National or
State legislation The matter was argued
before Justice Field sitting with United
States Circuit Judge Sawyer and United
States District Judges Hoffman, and Sabin
hast Monday. The chief question raised was
TO determine the power of the Railway Com
mission to compel che witness in question to
answer their queries The court decides
that the Pacific Railway Commission is not
a tadieial body. 1t possesses no judi
cial power tt can deter nine 10 right OF
the Government 0f of the companies inves-
tigated by it., Its report to the President
will not even be admissible in a Judicial in
1tiry as evidence of any matters invest1-
gated 1t is mere board of inquiry to
obtain information on certain matters and
report the result to the President and to
Congress- It is authorized TO invoke the aid
of the United States courts III requiring the
attendance and testimony of witnesses, the
production of books, papers and documents,
and such courts may, III case of refusal
Of q witness to obey the subpoena, issue an
order requiring such witness to obey, and to
produce books and papers and answer qUes~
tiers The citizens right of personal Sc
curity involves not only the protection OF
his person from assault, but the exemption
of his private affairs books and papers
from the scrutiny of others. The law COM
pels the production in Judicial proceedings
of such documents as effect the interest
ct others CT which are necessary to
the prosecution of criminals, andi Only one
of these ways can they be obtained and
made public against the viii OF the owners.
In Boyd VS. the United States GIG U. S,
gill the Supreme Court said: SAny COM
pulsory discovery by extorting the party's
0sth or compelling the production of his
private books and papers to convict
him of crimes or to forfeit his property
is contrary to the principles of freq
government" This had reference to
criminal proceedings, but is applicable to
any such production of private books and
papers of a party otherwise than in tho
course of judicial proceedings on q direct
suit for that purpose. 1t is fofclble lntru-
sion into and compulsory exposure OF ones
private affairs and papers without judicial
process in the course Of judicial proceed
ings which is contrary TO the principles OF
free governments and abhorrent TO the In
stincts of EnglishmeD and Americans.
In Hallett, Kilbourne VS. Thompson Q13
t. s.. 1861, Thompson had refused to obey
an order of the House of Representatives to
produce books and papers, and was by order
of the Speaker confined in jail fOrty-five
days, when he was released ON habeas cor
pus by the Supreme Court Of the District OF
Columbia. He sued the geant-at-Arms,
and the Supreme Court of the United States
held that Congress did not possess the power
to inquire into the private affairs of private
citizens.
The decision proceeds:
'"The net creating this commission author
ICES it to inquire whether the directors, officers
or employees of the Central Pacific are inter-
eSted in other business corporations with which
undertakings or leases have entered into, bub
they are limited in their inquiries as to The
interest of SUCH officers in other bust
ness to such matters as these persons may
choose to disclose They were not prohibited
from engaging in other lawful business be-
cause of their interest in and connection with
the Central Pacific, and that other business
might as well be the construction and mGaage-
ment of other railroads as the planting OF
fruit, in which some of them have in fact been
engaged.
with reference to vouchers, respecting
which the principal interrogatOries are pro-
pounded to which we are asked to compel an
swers from witnesses, it is conceded by the
commission in this motion that the moneys
converted by them were not charged
against the United States in ascertain
ing the net earnings of the company.
If such were the case it Is difficult to
see what interest the United States can have
in the disposition of these moneys. The courts
can not, upon that concession, aid The commits
sion in ascertaining how moneys were expend-
ed. It Would seem as though Congress intend
ed that the court should make the order sought
upon the mere request of the commission
without regard to the nature Of the inquiry, but
it is difficult to believe that it could have intend
ed that the court should thus be Inc mere
executor of the commissioners will; and yet
if the commissioners are not bound as above
described, the conclusion we have reached
makes 1t unnecessary to consider whether the
ore 5tions were proper in themselves. The
courts can not be made instruments to aid the
commission. The court, therefore, declines
to make an or Ter giving the commission &C
cess to the books of the construction com
panies and compelling the officers to answer
questions